Manufacturer's Cenvat credit denial affirmed for failure to meet lease criteria.

The appellant, a confectionary manufacturer, sought cenvat credit for capital goods received under a rent agreement, contending eligibility under Rule 4(3). However, the agreement did not meet the criteria of a lease or hire purchase as required by the rule. Despite citing supportive judgments, the appellant failed to establish entitlement to the credit. The impugned order demanding duty, interest, and penalty was upheld, with the appellant directed to make the necessary payments within six weeks. The stay petition was dismissed, and compliance was mandated by a specified future date.

---

---

Issues:
- Eligibility of cenvat credit for capital goods received on rent basis
- Interpretation of Rule 4(3) and Rule 4(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of lease or hire purchase agreement for cenvat credit

Analysis:
The appellant, a confectionary manufacturer on job work basis, received capital goods from a principal manufacturer under a rent agreement. The Department contended that since the capital goods were not acquired from a financing company under a lease or hire purchase agreement, cenvat credit of Rs.33,44,067/- taken by the appellant was not eligible as per Rule 4(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of the credit, interest, and penalty. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand and penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the current appeal and stay application.

The appellant argued that the terms of the agreement with the principal manufacturer allowed them to avail cenvat credit under Rule 4(3). They cited judgments supporting their case. The Revenue contended that the agreement did not meet the criteria of Rule 4(3) or Rule 4(4) and urged for dismissal.

Rule 4(3) allows cenvat credit for capital goods acquired on lease or hire purchase from a financing company. Rule 4(4) restricts credit if depreciation is claimed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The agreement between the appellant and the principal manufacturer did not constitute a lease or finance agreement. The agreement indicated that the principal manufacturer allowed cenvat credit for central excise duty paid on capital goods, contrary to Rule 4(4). The appellant failed to establish acquisition of goods under a qualifying agreement as per Rule 4(3).

The judgments cited by the appellant were found inapplicable. The agreement did not meet the conditions for cenvat credit under Rule 4(3) and Rule 4(4). The impugned order was deemed valid, and the appellant was directed to deposit the duty, interest, and penalty within six weeks. The stay petition was dismissed, with compliance scheduled for a future date.

---